The U.N. ,Democrats, and their plan for America

Well, you misjudge the common literary device of irony. I will explain my point as dryly as possible. The U.N. report, which YOU cited as a cause for concern, turned out to have goals like ending world hunger & poverty, ensuring a clean, sustainable water supply & sanitation system for all, etc. MOST PEOPLE would not find these objectives alarming. They would, actually, find them to be laudable.

Your initial answer, when I brought this up, was that it is precisely these types of seemingly good, non-threatening statements of intent that should most worry us, because they are just window-dressing, lies, to obscure the agencies' true intents. Please correct me if I, somehow, misunderstood your meaning.

My commentary on your answer is what led to your reply, quoted at the top of this response. Since I had found your reasoning to be illogical, I was attempting to demonstrate this, through questions, the answers to which were meant to show the flaws in your stated opinion.

To this end-- if we should be so doubtful of the good faith of those claiming to have the desire to achieve what appear to be noble ends-- I asked what would people who truly had noble goals claim those goals to be? Or, I added, would no one have such admirable intentions, at least, no one who could be trusted? This is what is known as a rhetorical question. It is not expected that you would actually answer it, because it is supposed to be so clear what the answer is; in this case, the answer is that to assert that the goals of universal, quality education, gender equality, & the rest of the U.N. list, are in any way evidence of mal intent, is ludicrous, unless we believe that benevolent goals, by ANY human organization, are a sham; unless we see ALL as having deceptive, self-serving agendas.

The rest of my reply (the, "P.S.") was merely an extension of that LOGICAL ARGUMENT. Since this was meant to show the invalidity of your contentions-- that the U.N.'s apparently humanitarian goals were evidence of their sinister nature-- they should not have been taken by you as representing MY views, as your reply makes clear that you did. Once again, I was using the dialectic tactic of seeming to accept your premise, for the purpose of showing how ridiculous it was. So, by that measure of the U.N.'s threat to us all, based on their stated goals, I wondered how heinous, then, must be the actual objectives of religious groups who CLAIM to be trying to spread God's light, save peoples' souls, bring spiritual joy to all the world, and other seemingly good things.

 

LBJ enslaved us all?

 

You omitted "and ensured employment", after "taught a trade in addition to their education".

The current neoliberal orthodoxy presents the NAIRU dogma as some sort of holy writ, but it is nevertheless self-serving nonsense designed to maximize the share of the nation's output going to the rich (via an unemployed pool of workers to keep a brake on wages).

All reversible, given these simple propositions:

1. Guaranteed employment for all who want it, ie no involuntary un/under/hidden unemployment, with a set minimum wage above poverty level.

2. The available resources and productive capacity of modern AI and IT assisted economies allow the first proposition, because vital wealth creation is confined to relatively small sections of a modern economy eg food production requires only c.3% of the workforce, so there are choices a community can make between private sector "invisible hand" market activity, and public sector desirable social activity such as caring for the elderly and the environment.

 

@yabberefugee

To, more briefly, summarize my foregoing reply to you (post #101), I was not, "mocking," any religion, or expressing a direct opinion on anything other than YOUR CONCLUSIONS. I meant to show that you came to them, not through well-reasoned, evidentiary means, but through your own, highly-prejudicial assumptions, regarding the U.N. & Democrats, on the one hand, & religious groups (&, presumably, Republicans, or those politicians who you endorse) on the other. By COMPARING the U.N. document's stated intents with those of traditional Christian missionary efforts, your argument's double-standard is clear. To take this as my judgement of any particular missionary group is unfounded & mistaken. My post, in which you suggested contained religious criticism, was solely a critique of YOUR ARGUMENT.

 

As well as torturing and executing 'heretics'.....IIRC the last person to be hung, drawn and quartered in Britain for denying the Trinity mythology happened as late as the 18th century.

Imposed?
Most communities accept rule of law as necessary to avoid anarchy. Guess what: the law necessarily imposes restrictions on self-interested individuals.

So...anarchy, and terrorism, resulting from, for example, a belief that scripture is the Word of God, rather than the word of men in search of God. (Rabin paid for this false belief with his life). Anyone for a revival of Marcion's New Testament?

OTOH, rule of law and and the scales of justice are not as blind as naturally self-interested individuals, which is why we need international law also, to move beyond the present reign of terror (with the 'nuclear clock' currently at 2 minutes to midnight).

Hence the need to dispel that sort of erroneous thinking, with quality education. It's what can be achieved in the future that should be the basic guide of education, while we should understand and learn from the past.

​

 

The larger the government and the greater the population, the smaller the voice and rights of the individual. This is why States which were smaller entities, were given more rights than the Federal government.

 

On what do you base your implication that the U.N. is FORCING ANYTHING on ANYONE?
This is, if not a false, disingenuous argument on your part, one that is tragically misguided. I don't think anyone, but I'm certain that I don't, support the idea of forced compliance with these stated ideals. I am also extremely dubious of the suggestion that the U.N. would be advocating compelling any of these things. However, if I am mistaken-- as previously requested of the thread's initiator, yabberefugee-- all one need do is post the supporting proof, from the linked document (which I only skimmed but which seemed ENTIRELY BENIGN; & I don't plan on reading 41 pages, word for word, based on allegations by someone who, themself, can't be bothered to post the evidence showing that my initial appraisal was mistaken).

In other words, your post seems to be pointless, argumentative pablum; no one disagrees with with the idea you, "espouse;" nor is there any NEED to espouse it, in relation to this thread, unless you are discussing some hypothetical, future situation. And if that is the case, I am curious why you picked my post to which to reply. Did you think you knew what my opinion would be, if that situation were to arise?

You point out that I mention education, though it is not clear that you realize this comes from the document cited in the OP. Did you not even bother to glance at it? Like most U N plans, I believe this is a toothless assertion by the world's nations that we agree that education is good, equality is good, sanitation is good, poverty is bad, hunger is bad, and so forth. It seems merely a statement of desire to promote these goals, to work toward them. I did not look into the specifics, but I doubt they were very specific. As far as education goes, for example, I know that there are countries in Africa in which what prevents children from being educated is a lack of desks for them (I know that there's a charity working to remedy this, promoted by MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell), or the rule in one country that children require shoes to go to school, which is something many in this country can't afford. So, the U.N. document's principles would be seen to encourage a nation's donating shoes, or desks, to the impoverished nation. Would you decry that as tyranny?

P.S.-- Your Shakespeare graphic was pretty cool, though.

 

You use some pretty tall words there Def! But I think they accomplished a lot. They reveal to me who you are and your objectives. You mockingly speak of Jesus and those who follow Him while pretending to have some moral high ground of your own. Jesus was not the rich, powerful, political tool you want to use, but He set the world on it's ear by methods you would not approve of. He has a Kingdom now that you won't understand. "No dialectic tactics here". But you have revealed who you are!

 

" one condemns others for wanting to end hunger, poverty, etc. That's what Christian institutions have been doing for 2,000 years." Anyone who beleives that needs to read The Darkening Age by Catherine Nixey. A look at the true brutal history of the cult we call Christianity. The early Christuans were nothing more than terrorists. Don't beleive me read the book.

 

You are a perfect example of how a person's reasoning is formed by the history they are taught. Notice how you're not mentioning the throwing of one's first born into the fire by the pagans to appease the gods when under attack, or how Christians were set on fire at the arenas to light up the Roman games, etc., etc.

But since you mentioned Britain in the 18th century, then how about this bit. If you stole a sheep, you would be drawn and quartered. Oh well, at least it made for some very honest people.

I was not thinking in terms of the UN as it is. I was thinking in terms of the 'great reset', and the 'liberal' one world government - and which I am adamantly against. It is being forwarded today by many 'elites' with the excuse of the Corona virus, so I offer my apologies.

 

Oh, so that's why Christians were thrown to the lions and used as human torches to light up the games? Interesting!

And yet with all the persecution, Christianity grew - as it is growing today in the Near and Middle East - even though Christians have been killed by ISIS and Al Nusra on an average of 300 a day.




Darkness reigns without the light,
with souls a-wandering in the night,
of pagan lusts, barbarity,
of malice, harm and cruelty.

We pray that there will be a day,
when evil such will slide away.
So that our troubles all can cease
and in this world there will be peace - Jeannette

 

Well, I'll think the best of you: being, that you are sorely mistaken, rather than purposely misrepresenting the truth. I don' t know why you would come to your conclusion, since you don't bother to explain, & I thought my point & intention were clear even in my original post, which I've now explained thoroughly to you: if good-sounding intentions equate with evil ulterior motives-- which was what YOU SAID ABOUT THE U.N. objectives in their publication you linked to this thread-- then what terrible things must other groups be up to, which claim to be pursuing good works? Maybe you just can't handle the truth about your own inconsistent approach to similar situations, depending on your pre-suppositions about the groups involved. Therefore you must imagine something bad about me, & that gets you out of having to pay attention to my logical argument. That's just sad.

I will, at least call to your attention that I said NOTHING AT ALL about JESUS-- my satire of the way you viewed the U.N. was directed at MISSIONARIES spreading the good news about God & Jesus (or, if it were the U.N. saying this was their goal, you would say, "pretending," that was their intent); the two things (Jesus & Christian proselytizers) are not the same.

I, personally, don't automatically doubt the stated intents of either group (Christian missionaries or the U.N.), w/o a legitimate reason. You supply no reason to disbelieve that the U.N. objectives are genuine. Once again, I doubt neither, but was merely demonstrating YOUR WAY of viewing the U.N., as it would be applied, in the same way to this other, WORLDWIDE FORCE. It's called, making an analogy, & it's not such a big word that it's beyond your comprehension. But we only see what we want to.

 

Well, though your comment, unexplained, did not fit my post, it would certainly go along with this thread. So why do you not expound on this, "great reset," &, "liberal, one-world government?" It honestly seems quite a stretch to make, at this point in time, in which worldwide, government cooperation has been suffering setbacks, but if you can offer anything more than baseless fears & conspiracy theories, I am certainly willing to entertain fact-based speculations.

I am not as unqualified a supporter of the U.N. as I am guessing you imagine. I feel that having a place for nations to discuss topics of planetary import, is a good thing, even if the institution is frequently ineffective. But it does do some good works. Also, however, some of the independent organizations it has spawned, do trespass a bit into exercising undemocratic control over countries, & manifesting the hubris you mentioned.

Here is my response to a poster who was contending that the goal of the U.N. was to spread Socialism or Communism. It is from the thread, Sanders' coup attempt against Biden-- (not so far a wandering from the original topic, as threads here are customarily-inclined to go). Note the interesting connection of the article excerpt I included in that post & the goal of the universal access to sustainable water supplies, in the U.N. document linked to this thread.

 

I'm very aware of history. The fact I didn't mention those things does not mean I am not aware of them, nor does it change my argument at all, which is - allegiance to any ONE scriptural tradition, as ultimate truth, will end in tears....and terrorism.

Yes the age was brutal...nearly 2000 years after Christ said "love God and love one another"...... Still no interest in Marcion?
What a different religion Christianity would have been: a true religion of peace, founded on the Prince of Peace Himself, not being the son of the monstrous bronze age Hebrew deity.

Machinery to criminalize war as a means of dispute settlement between nations is not "one world government". Government covers many spheres from local to state to national ...and finally (hopefully not in the too far distant future) international sphere, which would ONLY be concerned with inter-national relations (not intra-national).

Your sovereignty of the individual concept- whether national or individual - is increasingly obsolete in a more and more economically and ecologically connected global community.
Pandemics are only a part of it.

Competitive neoliberalism ....with trade wars and currency wars engendering entrenched poverty that results in untreated pollution on a vast scale threatening the world's oceans (eg plastic pollution) and environment .....even if the climate scientists don't know what they are talking about...requires the correction only achievable by international co-operation.

I don't think that's 'elitist'. Rather it's realist, looking at the world as it is, rather than waiting for (hoping) that Jesus will return and put everything right.

 

Surely the UNUDHR is the expression par excellence of Jesus' commandment: "Love God and love one-another", in the modern global village.

 

no. never. But of course that wont stop far right navel gazers from crying "wolf'.

 

How one worships is cultural, and that will not change, nor should it since people were never made to be the same. The Tower of Babel comes to mind. But the beliefs that one espouses in who they worship is different. I could never equate a worshipper of satan, and who is under the influence of satan, the same as one who is guided by the love of our Triadic God's Holy Spirit.

And yet had Christianity not existed, and the humane laws of Christianity not spread throughout the world, how much more barbaric the world would have been. Anyway God has given man a free will, and will not impose anything on anyone.

As for the bronze age Hebrew deity, he was no worse than all the other 'demon gods' that existed. God first began revealing Himself to Abraham, and then when He felt the time was ripe, He revealed Himself further when he gave Moses the moral laws. After Alexander's conquests and the development of Hellenic thought, God felt the world was ripe for the full revelation of Himself in the person of Jesus Christ.

Christ will return, but not until the anti Christ marks everyone, so that they won't be able to buy or sell without the mark of the beast. Notice how everything is heading that way? XI said last week that everyone in the world should have a barcode, and there's even talk of not allowing people to fly without a vaccination for Covid.

It doesn't matter though, because people can make their plans, but God has His own plans. The one world government will not happen because of WWIII. The war will start when Erdogan falls and the new leaders close the straits to Russian ships. Then Russia will attack Turkey in full force, and around the same time, or shortly afterwards, Israel will attack Iran.

After the war, which might last 4 years, but I'm not sure, there will be about 30 years of peace for the Gospel to spread. Then the culmination of all evil in the person of antichrist, will be voted in as the world's leader.

(I'm not a prophet, I'm just reporting what the Greek (authentic) Saints have said, and they have been very, very accurate.)

 

Just to let you know. The Great Reset, which is touted as a conspiracy theory by the MSM and its advocates in this country, is a subject of conversation in the EU.

 

Read my entire post. The small excerpt you quoted was meant to show yabberefugee a reflection of his own attitude toward the U.N.'s goal statement (end hunger, poverty, etc.) which was the origin of this thread. He didn't get it, either.

 

That doesn't tell me anything about it. My impression was that you were someone who was interested in the, "details." By the way, what does MSM stand for?

 

Communication is a difficult thing. Sorry. I did read and liked your entire post.

I just expected you might agree with my proposition that the UNUDHR is an expression of Christ's commandment to the whole world to "love God and love one another".

 

The problem with that is that 1.5 billion Muslims are not guided by the love of a mythical triadic God - a blasphemey according to the Koran - but by their obedience to the One True God, of whom Jesus was a prophet.

BTW, the Koran says God made people into tribes and nations, so that they may know oneanther through their differences:

Qur'an 49:13 Surah Al-Hujura: O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise each other).

Can the two religions co-exist? Of course, provided one group doesn't force their differences on the other.

OK. But the manner of the taking of Jerusalem by the crusaders in 1099, compared with it's recapture by Saladin in 1187, demonstrates no ONE side has a monopoly on humane behaviour....

Fair enough narrative of the history of mankind's development along the path from barbarity to civilization...
but the warrior Moses who claimed authorization by God to commit genocide on Israel's enemies, also had to intervene on behalf of the Israelis themselves to prevent their destruction by their angry God?

This thread is related to the UN; I reckon the UNUDHR is an expression in our times of Christ's great commandment:"Love God and love one-another."

Waiting for Jesus to return is not an option for humans if we are to develop a successful human civilization. Eradication of poverty and war, and avoidance of ecological disaster will have to be achieved by our own efforts - with the Great Commandment of Christ in mind.

Plausible scenario, except you didn't say what happens next .
But you are persisting with your false "one world government" construct, when what is required is rule of (international) law to deal with disputes between nations, other than by resorting to war. Spot the difference? National sovereignty cannot be absolute in an economically and ecologically connected world.

Less plausible scenario. Better to strengthen the institutions of the UN, to criminalize war and to eradicate poverty.

 

The Main Street Media that parrot one another and are owned by 6 corporation.

 

Now to set the record straight........you did refer to Jesus and you spoke of OUR relationship to Him....and I believe you did so "mockingly". You later called it a "tactic" of some sort. I can set that dishonesty aside now, and address what we are discussing.
If you were a "believer" and (is it fair to assume you are not?) I believe you would understand my position. Through my knowledge of the Word I could lay out the nature of our humanness and describe why I do not trust the betterment of all mankind through Worldly organizations and goals like the U.N. I won;t do that. Instead I will give you reasons why I mistrust through my own observations. And by the way, I believe every Christian is a "missionary" of sorts' I don't believe belonging to an organization does make you a "Christian Missionary. And further to that discussion you said "the two things (Jesus & Christian proselytizers) are not the same." You certainly didn't get that idea from the study of God's Word or any knowledge of Jesus. Those that convey to others the knowledge of the Gospel are considered to be The Body of Christ....they are one and the same.

Whenever you have a group of governments consolidate into a global organization you are dealing with ulterior motives. For instance, the Paris Peace Accord gives strict standards that the U.S. must meet "pronto" while China and India have until 2035. What does that accomplish? The UN, if submitted to, would over ride American sovereignty in favor of Nations to which we have nothing in common. I know this from observing it's actions over at least 4 decades. I can cut and paste examples but so can you. Instead I am going to describe for you a scenario that to me describes best what happens when a group of celebrities and politicians come forth with their vision of enlightenment as you describe.

Quite a while back we had an event. I believe it was called "Hands Across America" celebrities all across the country held hands and what was their chant?.... They had a song.
"We are the World, We are the children, We are the ones to make a better world....."
Nothing changed at all because of that except for a bunch of liberal folks feeling good about themselves. They also felt real good about one of their leaders.....Michael Jackson. During that time, and it came to knowledge a little later, Jackson was baiting little boys into his lair giving them what he called "Jesus Juice" to dull their senses so he could sleep with them.

You might say "what does that have to do with the U.N.? I will reply when a bunch of humanists get together and say they are going to save the world....WATCH OUT! There will always be ulterior motives just as there is when humanists use "Religion" to promote their agenda. I am afraid that until Jesus returns, the world will not be "one" as the Marxist influence of John Lenin declared. However, it is our charge to influence our community to change their individual hearts to accomplish what we know to be good. That is why I believe government works best when kept small and close to the individuals for reasons of accountability and oversight.